It's an odd notion that newspapers deserve or somehow own advertising revenue. But besides that, the horse is not just out the barn, it's already been served up as dog food.
https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/1357322298055929859
Adding: that advertisers are so clearly willing to change platforms shows some combination of 1) you offer nothing particularly unique or advantageous for the advertiser, and 2) your publication gives no reason for potential advertisers to feel loyal or to seek brand association
I think there's something even more profound going on here, however. I've long felt that the value of advertising *to advertisers* has always been oversold, especially the old display ads in the local newspaper...
I am perhaps an outlier, but by a very early age, like 6 or something, I had trained myself to ignore such advertising, and by the time I became an adult, I quite literally had no conscious awareness of whatever was being advertised.
The old newspaper circa 1970 had a great sell to advertisers: your ad is going to end up on the breakfast table of every household in the city, and while 2.5 member family household Dad might not read the ad, Mom will. But now? Hardly.
As we've seen with various online advertising scandals, a lot of online advertising "value" is bullshit as well.
But at least the online stuff can target specific demographics and provide some (if sometimes sketchy) stats on engagement and the like. I don't see how newspaper advertising can do any of that.
Hey, the advertiser-supported newspaper was a great gig so long as there were just a few (or even better, just one) paper in every town and pretty much everyone read it. But it ain't coming back.
Which is why I rejected advertising as a revenue model for the Halifax Examiner, right from the start. Er... please subscribe: halifaxexaminer.ca/subscription-a…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
